News

🗞️ ALJ Dismisses All Allegations in Aldridge Electric Electrician's ULP Case

ALJ dismisses electrician's claims that employer violated NLRA by terminating him for union activity, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory motive and that employer acted based on legitimate safety concerns and workforce needs.

onthelaborfront

27 Jan 2026 — 3 min read

Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi has dismissed all allegations in an unfair labor practice complaint filed by electrician Robert Stafford against Aldridge Electric, Inc. The case, decided January 27, 2026, involved allegations that the employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act through multiple terminations and discriminatory working conditions.

Stafford, a journeyman electrician working through Local 26 and Local 70 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, filed charges after being terminated from two separate projects in the Washington, D.C. area. The complaint alleged the employer retaliated against him for making safety complaints and filing a union grievance.

The First Layoff (May 19, 2023): The ALJ found that Aldridge initially violated the Act when it laid off Stafford just hours into his first day on the Mount Vernon substation project because he was on the company's "no-rehire list" for having filed a grievance the previous year. However, the judge dismissed this violation as de minimis because Aldridge reinstated Stafford within two days with full backpay after the union intervened.

The Drug Test Issue: Following a workplace accident in which Stafford caused approximately $5,000-$9,999 in equipment damage, he was required to take a urine drug test under direct observation. The complaint alleged this was an "onerous and rigorous" working condition imposed discriminatorily. The ALJ dismissed this claim, finding that Amanda Rossmann, the corporate compliance officer who made the decision, had no knowledge of Stafford's protected activities and acted solely because Stafford took nearly 10 hours to complete the test, raising concerns about potential drug test evasion.

The Final Termination (July 6, 2023): The ALJ applied the Wright Line test—the burden-shifting framework used in mixed-motive discrimination cases—and found the General Counsel failed to establish that anti-union animus motivated Stafford's final layoff. The decision-maker, Superintendent Kevin Guizar, had no knowledge of Stafford's prior protected activities. The employer demonstrated it would have terminated Stafford regardless due to his role in the June accident and a legitimate reduction in force that affected multiple electricians simultaneously.

Judge Giannasi emphasized that there was no evidence connecting the 2022 supervisor who placed Stafford on the no-rehire list for filing a grievance with the 2023 decision-makers at the Mount Vernon project. The jobs were under different divisions, and there was "no evidence of communications about safety complaints between Matallana and the Mount Vernon decision makers."

The decision illustrates the application of the Wright Line burden-shifting framework in cases where employer actions are supported by legitimate business justifications such as safety violations or workforce adjustments.

Key Points

All allegations dismissed: ALJ found no violation of Section 8(a)(3) or 8(a)(1) despite electrician's claims of retaliation for union activity
De minimis doctrine applied: May 19 layoff technically violated Act but dismissed because employer remedied it within 2 days with full backpay
Wright Line test failure: General Counsel couldn't prove anti-union animus was motivating factor in terminations
Legitimate business reasons accepted: Court found employer acted based on safety concerns after $5,000+ equipment accident and reduction in force
Knowledge gap critical: Decision-makers at second project had no knowledge of employee's prior protected activities under first supervisor
Drug test timing justified direct observation: 10-hour delay in completing test raised legitimate evasion concerns, not retaliation
No causal connection: ALJ found insufficient evidence linking 2022 grievance to 2023 employment actions at different project under different division